When the Record Stops on Musical Goalies

But the bottom line is that it would seem that these two 22-year-olds often take more than a single game in order to get into the proverbial groove, and should be allowed to do so.

I’m okay with Varly in net for Habs/Pens. Unfinished business, y’know.

I was thinking about the comment made on 24/7 that Brent Johnson will get about 30 starts this year.

I recall the days of Brodeur getting 60+ starts, but even that meant someone else got 20.

Perhaps those are the ratios we should head to.

I’ve never been a fan of the “win and you’re in” mantra. That to me is a cop out and, with no disrespect to JP, not at all a merit based approach to choosing your starting goalie as there is so much more that go into wins and loses than the play of your net-minder. Under this approach you’d bench a goalie who made 35+ saves in a 1-0 loss and keep riding a “hot” goalie who won his last game 6-5 with a sub-80% save percentage. Granted those are extreme cases but it’s why I’ve always hated the “Wins” category that is associated with NHL goalies. To me a goalie’s worth is determined by his save percentage and nothing more.

The Caps are in a tough spot this year with their goalkeepers. Both guys need consistent playing time as evidenced by JP’s stats, but neither one’s play has warranted an extended stay on the bench. Unless injury indicates otherwise, I think they are going to have to alternate giving each 3-4 game stretches to allow them to get into a groove while not completely cooling off the other.

This will really be interesting come playoff time and I am very interested to see how they handle the workload. I think the Caps are in an advantageous position of being able to platoon two goalies with polar opposite styles. While having a defined starter is nice, being able to play two guys will not only keep them both fresh through (hopefully) 4 series but also force the opposing team to prepare for and game plan against two completely different goalkeepers.

These are awesome numbers JP, and they very interesting. It would line up nicely with how if the goalie plays well they could get a majority of starts until they have a bad game individually.
Then they would get some time off hopefully while the other goalie gets a game to get into the swing of things.

So, what does this suggest? Never play these goalies every other game? Alternating 3 game stretches?

Just checked Olie’s number on Hockey Reference.

From 1997-98 to 2007-2008 he started: 64, 64, 73, 72, 71, 66, 63, 59, 54, 54.

Seven years in a row over 60 games. That is the definition of a number one goalie.

And – two of his lowest three years’ GAA came when he played in over 70 games.

No arguing with the numbers. The problem the Caps face is that despite having watched both these guys for a few years, management still doesn’t know which one’s the better goalie. That’s probably why they’re so reluctant to give one guy the reins and let him play 10 games in a row, even if he loses one or two in that stretch. It’s a true conundrum- play one goalie a lot and his numbers will improve dramatically, but doing so may hurt the other guy who could ultimately be better. At some point, McPhee and Boudreau are going to have to make a decision, but unless the other guy makes it for them, they’ll always be some lingering doubt that they made the right choice.

Awesome numbers JP, and while I’d expect the numbers to be better when the stat is basically discussing periods of time when the team is winning, Varly’s numbers are absolutely dominant. That one start at MSG really brought his stats down, otherwise he has been pretty solid in his starts this year. If only we could trust that groin…

The numbers are striking, but I’m not sure they show exactly what they’re being interpreted to show (or at least, not as strongly as it appears). Correlation is not causation.

Let’s say hypothetically that goalies get hot for 6 game stretches and then cold for 6 game stretches, and being hot and cold is otherwise independent of what happened the previous game (including who started). The numbers might still look a lot like this, because if Boudreau puts a guy in at the beginning of a hot streak, he’ll have one good 1st game and then 5 good games after. But if you put him in during a cold streak, he’ll have one bad game and get benched. Then when his turn rolls around again, it’s another bad game, and benched. And again. The point being that he would get a lot more bad 1st games than good 1st games, and that would be almost entirely a result of Boudreau’s policy and not of any actual difference caused by “getting into a groove.”

I’m not saying the analysis is wrong, just that it’s not conclusive on its own. There are other possible explanations. And it’ll take someone smarter than me to come up with a test that excludes the effects of Boudreau’s policy from the actual performance of the goaltenders depending on whether they’re getting consecutive starts (and probably 10,000 repetitions (i.e., games) to reach real statistical significance).

Since we have two young goalies who both have had injury issues (Varly for longer periods than Neuvy, but Neuvy has occasionally not been able to go after a morning practice), I think they need to believe that the coach thinks they can both play well, because they may be called upon at a moments notice. “Win and you’re in” is a sweet and simple slogan, but I think there needs to be some attention to whether and how these two young goalies are developing confidence to overcome slumps and struggles. If the message becomes “you’re one mistake away from being benched”, I think that might undermine the process. (Especially if they’re played to the point of breaking down, which we might have seen, to some extent from Neuvy early this season.) As others have said, I think developing young goalies may involve letting each goalie string together a few starts in a row. Maybe the message should be closer to “we know you can be very good, so play strong and you stay in”